Any commentary on the contrast of the above and Jesus as the lamb, deserving?
My inquiry is more about our value on things. Such as titles don’t make a man and are seldom convincing. Deserving has to do with earned and worth.
Any thoughts anyone?
(argh clicked on the wrong reply button, this is NOT a reply to revealing)
A carpenter who cannot make a table which stands on its own is incompetent. I do not believe in a God which is either incompetent or incapable of creating anything but a dream world.
BUT that doesn’t mean the carpenter’s table doesn’t take any care or maintenance. It should be oiled (polished) to keep the wood from cracking. It is the same with shepherd and his sheep or a farmer with his crops. The sheep and crops don’t vanish like puff of smoke when the caretaker turns his head, but the shepherd and farmer will guard them from all kinds of mishaps. And that is what I think Hebrews 1:1-3 is referring to.
Just because the Bible uses analogy of human rulers that doesn’t mean that this is the way God actually does things. It was NEVER the intent of the Bible to explain HOW God does the things He does.
There is a way to fix that, Mitchell.
It really isn’t about you and what you can and cannot believe in, it’s about ontology. We don’t define who God is.
What is “it?”
I was talking about what sort of God I can believe in. The one I hear some people describe sounds more like the devil to me. Atheism is more reasonable.
No we define the words we use in order to communicate.
We’ve talked about this before, Mitchell, and your earth-bound analogy. What happens if the fundamental reality of the universe is information as QM may be hinting? That would be the Mind of God. And the Logos “upholding it by the word of his power” is a good fit.
Yep, block me. grin
1 Like
Hey, you figured it out! ; - )
1 Like
To be a god of your own dream is no accomplishment whatsoever. And it explains absolute nothing about reality. It is the most worthless theism imaginable.
Yep, that describes me all right, and what I believe in, not to mention any objective experience of God’s providential interventions! XD That’s pretty funny. 
You lost me Mitchell as it would be a shared functional “dream”, not atomically self-interest, and no use to anyone. Had trouble following that one.
Shared with whom?
You mean shared with the those whom God dreamed up. Well if you if call that sharing then every dreamer does that.
Since there is no rationality to dreams it is impossible for the existence
of a dreamer god to explain anything whatsoever. It is a denial of reality.
He has these spells now and then – fairly frequently, actually.
How did they do that?
By abandoning science and turning Darwin into a cause. It was and still is a two way street of selective proofs. enjoy.
So Wallace and Huxley and Weismann and Haldane and Medawar and Mayr and Dobzhansky and Maynard-Smith and Monod and Gould and Lewontin and Diamond and Dawkins and… abandoned science eh? For what cause?
PS and what selective proofs of what are they not selecting?
PPS and why are you counting coup?
1 Like
If God grounds being, then natural being - in Him - does the creating. And God’s goodness, wisdom, and power are inferred, looping back to the ‘If’, from an indirect (tho’ immanently sustained) creation that shows no absolute goodness and wisdom, but immense meaningless power: if God exists, despite complete, total, perfect natural evidence to the contrary, He is ineffable creator nonetheless. Of nature and its transcendence. Where all must be well, therefore He is good.
Poe little you. Forced to know the hearts of men and treason of science against reasonableness with no one but God as your witness.
It isn’t really all that tough to discern good science from the pontification regarding what it really reveals. But can you really reveal what is in your own heart or is the mission to sow disinformation simply paramount?
1 Like
I think there is rarely, if ever, a satisfactory answer to God “why?” questions, at least on this side of eternity.
I would comment on this question the same way I would to the question: “Why does God use gravity, rather that the direct decree, to move the planets in their orbits?” I would say this: Circumstantial evidence suggests that God has a preference, or at least a fondness, for employing secondary means. In terms of creating the diverse species, all the physical evidence suggests that God used evolution to do so. Theistic evolution merely adds (in my definition) two untestable (and as far as science is concerned, irrelevant) theological assumptions to “secular” evolution: 1) It was God’s chosen method to diversify life, and 2) It was never out of God’s control.
So I guess my answer to your question is a resoundingly boring guess: Because it pleased him to do so.
EDIT: typo
4 Likes
God is outside of time, eternal and infinite, a state we cannot even describe. In that eternal state he has had opportunity to create millions of universes, perhaps with different methods and results. Theologians tend to think in terms of our universe being the only one. And it seems absurd that a human could accurately describe the infinite for whom there is no before or after. Herb Spencer.
3 Likes